New Delhi: Setting aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that had revived committal proceedings under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Supreme Court has held that where a complaint case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the Magistrate's role at the pre-committal stage is confined to compliance with Sections 207 to 209 CrPC, and does not extend to hearing prosecution evidence afresh under Section 244.
THE APPEAL
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh was hearing a criminal appeal, arising out of Special Leave Petition, filed by complainant against a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby a Single Judge had remanded the matter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, to comply with Section 244 CrPC before the case could proceed to the Court of Session.
BACKGROUND
The appellant's case was that on 12.04.2007, an altercation broke out between the appellant and his father on one side and the respondents on the other, in the course of which his father fell unconscious and was later declared dead at the hospital. No FIR was registered at the time, and the appellant's complaints to the police on 16.04.2007 and 19.04.2007 did not result in registration of a case. He then approached the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh under Section 156(3) CrPC, and process under Section 200 CrPC was initiated on 19.02.2008. Evidence was recorded on 21.04.2008 and 10.01.2009, summoning orders were issued on 08.12.2009, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court on 03.05.2010. While the respondents' petitions seeking quashing were pending before the High Court, the Sessions Court framed charges on 05.04.2011, but only against respondent No.2, Narinder Bansal, resulting in the effective discharge of respondent Nos.1 and 3. The appellant's revision against this discharge, along with respondent No.2's separate revision challenging the summoning order and charge, were both disposed of by the common impugned order.
HIGH COURT'S REASONING
The High Court had held that Section 244 CrPC required a Magistrate to hear all prosecution evidence irrespective of whether the offence was triable by the Magistrate or exclusively by the Court of Session, observing that "if the offence is serious, there has to be sufficient material in the shape of some evidence which is to be examined by the Magistrate before passing the Committal Order, the same has to be other than the pre-summoning evidence."
SUPREME COURT'S ANALYSIS
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether a Magistrate must record evidence under Section 244 CrPC when the offence, here under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Examining Sections 200, 209 and 244 CrPC, the Court held that Section 209, found in Chapter XVI dealing with commencement of proceedings before Magistrates, requires only that the Magistrate satisfy himself that the offence is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and thereafter commit the case after complying with Sections 207 or 208. Section 244, by contrast, falls within Chapter XIX dealing with the trial of warrant cases by Magistrates and has no application once it is evident that the case must go to the Court of Session.
The Court examined the three decisions relied upon by the High Court and found each of them distinguishable. In Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, the requirement to record evidence under Section 244 arose in the context of offences triable by a Magistrate, unlike the present case. In Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, the question concerned the right of an accused summoned under Section 319 CrPC to cross-examine witnesses, which did not arise here. In Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, the offences involved were themselves within the Magistrate's trial powers, unlike the present case which was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated that at the pre-trial stage a Magistrate performs administrative rather than judicial functions, being confined to ensuring compliance with Sections 207 to 209 CrPC and is "forbidden, by express provision of Section 319 CrPC, to apply his mind to the merits of the case."
The Court also traced the legislative history from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, noting that the earlier committal inquiry under Section 207-A, which required recording of evidence before a Magistrate, was consciously abolished on the recommendation of the Law Commission's 41st Report and replaced with the truncated procedure under Section 209 of the present Code, with the object of expeditious disposal of cases. Extracting the three-judge Bench decision in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, the Court noted that no provision of the CrPC grants an accused any right to file material at the stage of framing of charge, that right being available only at the trial stage.
Referring further to the three-judge Bench in Rattiram v. State of M.P., the Court underscored that the role of the committing Magistrate under the present Code has been "absolutely constricted" as compared to the 1898 Code, and that non-compliance with committal formalities would attract the principle of failure of justice only where actual prejudice is demonstrated.
The Court held that accepting the High Court's reasoning would require a number of witnesses to depose about the same set of facts twice, serving no purpose mandated by law, and concluded that the High Court had proceeded on an erroneous reading of the law.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 02.09.2019. Since the principal grievance before the High Court concerned the correctness of the Sessions Court's order framing charges only against respondent No.2 while effectively discharging respondent Nos.1 and 3, the Court directed the High Court to hear afresh both the appellant's revision petition and the connected revision filed by respondent No.2, and to decide them independently, uninfluenced by the remand that stood set aside. Noting that charges against respondent No.2 had been pending since 2011, the Court directed that both petitions be decided as expeditiously as possible, and not later than nine months, with parties directed to appear before the High Court on 16.07.2026.
Case Title: Neeraj Gupta vs. Pardeep Kumar Bansal & Ors. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.776 of 2020)
